Free Speech

[Linuxcooldude]

The SCOTUS ruled in her favor because the original speech was protected despite the fact that the school was outraged at what she said. The ruling had nothing to do with the punishment.

The school was forced to remove their disiplinary action or risk litigation based on SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

The answer lies with the Republican Party as a whole.

The Republican Party has captured the minds of those who live in the rural counties of America. Those voters are mostly farmers and rural shopkeepers. They lack education and they are not well-informed. Most of what they know about politics is by word of mouth, otherwise known as gossip.

Most of them do not have a computer. Some do not have a television, and, if they do, they don't spend much time watching it. Farming and ranching is not a eight hour job. It's more like an 18-hour job. The shopkeeper spends nearly all of his waking hours in his store because he doesn't have enough business to do otherwise.

They are quite gullible. If a politician they like says something, they take as gospel. Trump won their hearts because he is good at that kind of thing and he doesn't let truth or reality interfere with what he wants to say.

Trump's strength is mostly in the South, and somehow he captured the support of the evangelicals. Sorry, I can't explain that one. For that reason, Republicans are dictating health matters to women, bypassing both the woman and her doctor.

I grew up in the south as a kid and we are not the hicks you make us out to be.
We have televisions, computer clubs in high school and not everyone is a farmer.

You really don't have a clue what your talking about.

 

[Athanasius68]

My point is that something being illegal doesn't mean it won't happen.
Which has no bearing on whether it should or not.

My broader point is that you have to be prepared for the consequences of your speech.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to speak, not the freedom to make everyone listen without reacting.
Because that wouldn't be freedom at all, from their perspective.

Our exchange here is an example of this, limited though the framework is by being a privately controlled forum.
You made a statement, I responded, and the exchange continued. Consequences.

This is a variation of the comment "You have a nice place here. Shame if something were to happen to it."
Conseqences of free speech should not be violence directed toward the speaker.
Nor should it be sympathy directed toward the person who was violent toward somebody else's free speech.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The answer lies with the Republican Party as a whole.

The Republican Party has captured the minds of those who live in the rural counties of America. Those voters are mostly farmers and rural shopkeepers. They lack education and they are not well-informed. Most of what they know about politics is by word of mouth, otherwise known as gossip.

Most of them do not have a computer. Some do not have a television, and, if they do, they don't spend much time watching it. Farming and ranching is not a eight hour job. It's more like an 18-hour job. The shopkeeper spends nearly all of his waking hours in his store because he doesn't have enough business to do otherwise.

They are quite gullible. If a politician they like says something, they take as gospel. Trump won their hearts because he is good at that kind of thing and he doesn't let truth or reality interfere with what he wants to say.

Trump's strength is mostly in the South, and somehow he captured the support of the evangelicals. Sorry, I can't explain that one. For that reason, Republicans are dictating health matters to women, bypassing both the woman and her doctor.

If you’re going to criticize Republicans/Trumpsters, stick to facts and leave out the ignorant stereotype broad brush attacks on Southernors.

 

[NatMorton]

They have banned books and are banning more books. Even math books.

This is nonsense. Those books can be purchased and read by anyone in any of the states you mentioned. Selecting which books to include in public school curricula and which not to is not an act of censorship.

 

[azgreg]

If you don't support someone you don't like, to say something you don't like, you are not for free speech, not at all.

Not true at all.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Not true at all.

lol because it's only free speech if you agree with it

 

[azgreg]

lol because it's only free speech if you agree with it

No. Don't be stupid. I can dislike what someone says and still agree that they have the right to say it.

 

[The Mark]

This is a variation of the comment "You have a nice place here. Shame if something were to happen to it."
Conseqences of free speech should not be violence directed toward the speaker.
Nor should it be sympathy directed toward the person who was violent toward somebody else's free speech.

No, it's not.

I'm pointing out that depending on the topic spoken about, someone may lose their self-control and react badly.
I'm not condoning it, only point out that it may happen.

And recognizing that it might is part of accepting the consequences for speaking publicly.

 

[DarkWizard12]

No, it's not.

I'm pointing out that depending on the topic spoken about, someone may lose their self-control and react badly.
I'm not condoning it, only point out that it may happen.

okayyy and it may happen that we take the violent asshole to court and throw the book at him. What's your point?

And recognizing that it might is part of accepting the consequences for speaking publicly.

No. By merit of throwing him in prison for assault is us recognizing that we don't accept that behavior. Violence is not an appropiate response to speech.

We accept legal consequences to speech. Not, in this case, CLEARLY illegal assault. That's never acceptable and we will not accept it.

 

[Lisa]

The school was forced to remove their disiplinary action or risk litigation based on SCOTUS ruling.

You cannot discipline someone for protected speech, or doesn't that flippin' occur to you?

 

[The Mark]

okayyy and it may happen that we take the violent asshole to court and throw the book at him. What's your point?

No. By merit of throwing him in prison for assault is us recognizing that we don't accept that behavior. Violence is not an appropiate response to speech.

We accept legal consequences to speech. Not, in this case, CLEARLY illegal assault. That's never acceptable and we will not accept it.

I'm not arguing any of that, so stop fighting the strawman.

 

[KLATTU]

I don’t support allowing the deliberate spread of mis/disinformation that endangers the public’s welfare (ex; fake Covid cures, racial/xenophobic lies and conspiracy theories), and am very glad that private social media platforms work to flag and delete the known harmful content.

Very slippery slope. For example, there a countless quack cure for almost everything , including Covid out there. II say , I drank a half glass of vinegar every day and my Covid went away, would you say that should be flagged?

Now if I say , studies show that vinegar cures covid, and I don't cite the study, that would be wrong, buy I still wouldn't flag even that. IF you are dumb enough to believe that. Oh well.

 

[Evilroddy]

No tempest in a teapot. Clearly, you aren’t paying attention if you think Peddy’s idiocy is an isolated event.

Heard of FL’s don’t say gay law? How about the right wing’s insane anti-CRT crusade?

“What started in early 2021 as a conservative effort to prohibit teachers from talking about diversity and inequality in so-called “divisive” ways or taking sides on “controversial” issues has now expanded to include proposed restrictions on teaching that the United States is a racist country, that certain economic or political systems are racist, or that multiple gender identities exist, according to an Education Week analysis of 61 new bills and other state-level actions.

In Florida, a bill would ban teachers from saying “racial colorblindness” is racist. In South Carolina, a bill would ban teaching that “equity is a concept that is superior to or supplants the concept of equality.” In New Hampshire, “promoting a negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America” could become illegal, if a bill were to pass.

Here's the Long List of Topics Republicans Want Banned From the Classroom

There are now 61 censorship bills proposed in 24 states. One legislator wants teachers to pay $10,000 for teaching "critical race theory."

www.edweek.org

RateBulgarian:

I read the Education Week article which you linked to. As I said in a previous post, it is up to the teachers and allied school administrators to fight these intrusions by the state into the profession of teaching. Shut down schools until the offending states rescind such legislation. Refuse to submit any marks or documentation until the matter is resolved. If necessary, run teachers and former teachers for political office. Have teachers' unions sue the hell out of states, etc.

At the same time teachers have to realise that they are there to lead students towards learning and not to politicise them. Any primary or middle school teacher who teaches that the United States is fundamentally and irrevocably racist should be brought before their principal/head and should be told to stop, even if they have impeccable sources to back up such claims, because this is not education but rather politicisation. Likewise CRT which is a university-level analysis of the political, legal and social institutions of a country and how these institutions can relate to and promote racism systemically is above most high school students to understand and analyse. That is something which should only be covered in universities or introduced at the very end of a high school education as preparation for college or university.

As to parents getting involved in school administration or forming watch-dog committees, hold them to the same standards that they would hold the teachers to. Make them prove that a book is inappropriate for a classroom or library before an impartial board of professional librarians and if they can't then send them packing with a bill for the cost of hearing their challenge. Likewise for teachers they disapprove of.

Teachers are professionals and must both police and defend themselves and how they meet their professional standards. They should not allow any bureaucrat nor any politician to corrupt their duty to teach their students impartially nor should they allow any teacher to politicise what should be impartial education of future capabable and responsible citizens. Two lines must be drawn. One line for self-policing by teachers to prevent their peers from politicising education from the bottom up and one line to keep the state from politicising education from the top down.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Lisa]

This is nonsense. Those books can be purchased and read by anyone in any of the states you mentioned. Selecting which books to include in public school curricula and which not to is not an act of censorship.

It is censorship if they were previously part of the circular but were removed because of their content that someone deemed to be offensive to their sensibilities.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I'm not arguing any of that, so stop fighting the strawman.

you literally said we should accept assault as a consequence of free speech. No. **** that. If you assault someone because you're mad at what they're saying, in some states, they're allowed to shoot your ass to defend themselves. No. We do not accept that as a consequence of speech. We DO accept a perp's death as a consequence of assault.

I'm pointing out that depending on the topic spoken about, someone may lose their self-control and react badly.

And recognizing that it might is part of accepting the consequences for speaking publicly.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Shut down schools until the offending states rescind such legislation.

Under what/who’s authority would schools be shut down? Is that something teachers in Canada can do?

Do you really believe there is a legal mechanism in the United States that allows for taking school/students education hostage?

Refuse to submit any marks or documentation until the matter is resolved.

Again, where does the authority come from?

If necessary, run teachers and former teachers for political office.

A possible future solution for a present problem.

Have teachers' unions sue the hell out of states, etc.

On what grounds? Please, be specific.

At the same time teachers have to realise that they are there to lead students towards learning and not to politicise them.

Goes without saying.

Likewise CRT which is a university-level analysis of the political, legal and social institutions of a country and how these institutions can relate to and promote racism systemically is above most high school students to understand and analyse. That is something which should only be covered in universities or introduced at the very end of a high school education as preparation for college or university.

You know that. I know that. Good luck trying to explain it to all of the idiot Trumpster parents across America losing their minds over a right wing propaganda bogeyman.

As to parents getting involved in school administration or forming watch-dog committees, hold them to the same standards that they would hold the teachers to. Make them prove that a book is inappropriate for a classroom or library before an impartial board of professional librarians and if they can't then send them packing with a bill for the cost of hearing their challenge. Likewise for teachers they disapprove of.

A fantasy solution to a real problem.

Who is going to “make” parents prove that a book is inappropriate? School board members are elected by the local community and are answerable, in large part, to those parents that want books removed, or curriculum revised.

Make parents prove to a board of librarians that books should be removed? No such mechanism exists.

Canadian teachers must have quite a bit more authority/influence than American teachers.



* BTW, it’s RaleBulgarian.

 

[The Mark]

you literally said we should accept assault as a consequence of free speech. No. **** that. If you assault someone because you're mad at what they're saying, in some states, they're allowed to shoot your ass to defend themselves. No. We do not accept that as a consequence of speech. We DO accept a perp's death as a consequence of assault.

I never said that.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I never said that.

i literally quoted where you did so lol

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Very slippery slope. For example, there a countless quack cure for almost everything , including Covid out there. II say , I drank a half glass of vinegar every day and my Covid went away, would you say that should be flagged?

Yes. Flagged as unproven. Not removed though.

Now if I say , studies show that vinegar cures covid, and I don't cite the study, that would be wrong, buy I still wouldn't flag even that. IF you are dumb enough to believe that. Oh well.

That post should be deleted.

Remember, we’re talking about a private company with no 1st amendment requirement. You don’t have to like that, but as someone that supports the Constitution you should be prepared to stand behind a privately owned company’s right to police it’s content as it sees fit under the law.

 

[The Mark]

i literally quoted where you did so lol

Then you misunderstood what I wrote, because I didn't say that.

 

[Athanasius68]

No, it's not.

I'm pointing out that depending on the topic spoken about, someone may lose their self-control and react badly.
I'm not condoning it, only point out that it may happen.

And recognizing that it might is part of accepting the consequences for speaking publicly.

Yes-- "Nice place you have here. Shame if something should happen to it."

Somebody losing "self control" as a result of free speech is not a consequence of free speech.
Its a consequence of that somebody NOT believing in free speech.

 

[The Mark]

Yes-- "Nice place you have here. Shame if something should happen to it."

Somebody losing "self control" as a result of free speech is not a consequence of free speech.
Its a consequence of that somebody NOT believing in free speech.

Nah, it's just them loosing their cool and forgetting. Humans aren't naturally logical.

Edit: Especially when strong emotions get involved.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

If you’re going to criticize Republicans/Trumpsters, stick to facts and leave out the ignorant stereotype broad brush attacks on Southernors.

I did. Only in the South could this happen.

Florida Republicans led by Governor DeSantis have banned math books!

The Guardian reports, "Florida’s education department has rejected 54 mathematics textbooks from next year’s school curriculum, citing alleged references to critical race theory among a range of reasoning for some of the rejections, officials announced.

"The department said in a news release Friday that some of the books had been rejected for failure to comply with the state’s content standards, Benchmarks for Excellent Student Thinking, and that 21% of the books were disallowed “because they incorporate prohibited topics or unsolicited strategies, including CRT”.

Unbelievable, Benchmarks for Excellent Student Thinking. Hitler would be proud.

"Department officials disapproved an additional 11 books “because they do not properly align to Best Standards and incorporate prohibited topics or unsolicited strategies, including CRT," The Guardian.

Critical race theory is an academic practice that examines the ways in which racism operates in US laws and society.

The Guardian added, "In June last year, the Florida board of education ruled to ban the teaching of critical race theory in public schools. The release does not list the titles of the books or provide any extracts to offer reasons why the books were removed. The announcement follows a series of hardline measures by Republicans in the state to alter teaching in schools as conservatives thrust the issue of critical race theory into the country’s ongoing political culture wars."

The board did not bother to explain how math books taught racism to students. Maybe the board just didn't like math.

It seems apparent that Republicans are rejecting the reality of racism in America. This is logical since the Republican base is in the South and it is safe to say a number or Republicans are racist. For southern whites racism is a part of their heritage.

In addition, Republicans in the South are putting restrictions on voting and passing laws restricting the decisions women make about their own health. Grassroots Republicans in the South accept all this because Republican politicians say it is necessary.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

I grew up in the south as a kid and we are not the hicks you make us out to be.
We have televisions, computer clubs in high school and not everyone is a farmer.

I was speaking generally. Look at a map showing the rural counties of America. You will see rural counties are dominant in the South. Trump won the Presidency in 2016 because of his dominance in the rural counties of America.